An open letter to COLLECTIVE leadership - PART 2

A reply to Part 1 from Karie Murphy, head of the group wanting a "new party of the left", plus five more questions.

By Alan Story

TO: Karie Murphy and Pamela Fitzpatrick, Directors and Leaders, Collective (who are featured in cover photo)

FROM: THE LEFT LANE

DATE: 8 FEB 2025

This is Part 2 of a two-part series. Part 1 of this Open Letter was published on 24 January and can be found HERE.

+++++

A) BRIEF UPDATE:

1) So Collective, which has been saying for many months it wants to form “a new party of the left,” met at an undisclosed location in London on Saturday, 25 Jan. I am a personal dues-paying member of Collective and had wanted to come down from Norwich to attend. But as I had received no reply to my e-mail of a week earlier requesting the time and location (see Part 1), this proved impossible.

2) However, a few hours after Part 1 appeared, THE LEFT LANE (TLL) did receive this email from Karie Murphy, who is clearly the main voice in Collective. Slightly trimmed, here it is:

++++++

DATE: 24 Jan. 15:34

... It's unfortunate that we didn't speak but given your latest publication and yet another spurious attack on the Collective, I now see no point in having any discussion.

For the record, I've never met you. In fact, I was unaware of you as a comrade, activist or friend on the left. I had never heard of your work and today is the first time I've ever heard of The Left Lane blog. Today was the first that I had read your blog - it will be the last.

Your writing is in my opinion poor, completely inaccurate and clearly egotistical. For clarity, I won't be answering any questions urgent or otherwise posed by you.

You are not attending the meeting on Saturday for the simple reason that you have not been invited. You have never attended any zoom meetings because you have not been invited to attend. Those who are invited are welcomed and respected as comrades for the work they have done or are doing in their communities.

Unless you are a mind reader you have absolutely no clue what I believe or what Jeremy Corbyn believes about any future planning for a new Left party, so let's not over exaggerate your relevance. If you want to build "YOUR OWN" left party (as indicated in your blog) please feel free. ...

Karie Murphy

+++++++

A slight correction: in fact, I did attend a Collective Zoom meet on 18 November and that assisted me in understanding how your group operates. The petulant and dismissive tone of your letter further clarifies matters, as does what I have learned subsequently about Collective; see below.

I know you used to run Jeremy Corbyn’s office as leader of the opposition and I am not expecting a reply from you. You do not think your semi-secret Collective needs to get its message out or respond to evidence-based criticisms. Nor do you rate me or TLL. Hey! I’ll get over it.

3) In fact, Part 1 of the Open Letter was one of TLL’s most-read articles of recent months, was promoted and posted elsewhere, and attracted quite a few comments. Several people said they appreciated the investigative work that had gone into the piece and a Unite Community activist said she was looking forward to Part 2 and sharing it with her brother. On Facebook a reader commented: “Looks like we will need to seek a home elsewhere as they seem to have brought Labour's dictatorial ethos with them. "

Not everyone liked Part 1: Wrote one reader: “Fair & important questions, let down by the rhetorical fluff about what type of party it will be, as you know full well it will be some form of non-Marxist electoral type party. There has been no indication whatsoever it would be anything other than that. Within those parameters the nuances of just exactly what form it takes & how it operates should genuinely be up for debate amongst members.”

As I told this reader, TLL doesn’t think that the ”what type of party” question is mere “fluff.” The debate continues.

4) It is still unknown how many supporters Collective has, if its books have been audited --- it is expected to bring in almost £100,000 per year ---, what will be the expected role of Corbyn (he left by lunch time during the day-long meet) and a lot else.

5) Despite not attending on the 25^th, we have been able to uncover some further details, such as its draft interim constitution, which is made public below. First, we ask five more questions and then draw several conclusions.

B) FIVE MORE QUESTIONS

1) WHAT CRITERIA WERE USED BY YOU TO SELECT THE ORIGINAL “FOUNDING CONSTITUENT GROUPS” (as your new constitution calls them) OF COLLECTIVE?

One might assume that all groups you invited inside Collective’s “tent” would agree on the need to form a “new party of the left” because that is the main stated aim of Collective. That’s a wrong assumption about your group.

We interviewed representatives from a number of groups listed here on your website. Some of them may be perfectly fine mass organisations with laudable aims. But creating and building a new party of the left isn‘t one of them.

Here is what three organisations told us:

a) The Muslim Vote: “we are about building the impact of the Muslim vote… we are not socialist … we support independent candidates, Greens, SNP, Lib Dems.“

b) Assemble: “our aim is to build citizens assemblies…new parties are not our priority,” a spokesperson told TLL.

c) Just Stop Oil (JSO): There is no mention of creating a new party under the “our demand” section of its website. JSO is a high-profile direct action environmental group and does lots of good work. It does not, however, see “party building” on its agenda, a supporter confirmed to us.

Several groups listed are defunct or have no contact details.

The Socialist Party (SP), one listed supporter, already is a party. Why would it want a rival? And when you understand its history – see question 4 below – why would you want it as a “founding group?” Individual SP members are a different matter. TUSC is a creature of the SP. Same questions.

Some supporting groups are not listed. One is the Campaign for a Mass Workers Party, a tiny Zoom group of fewer than eight people. It does next-to-no community work. But one of its members knows you (Murphy) so it got an invite and now participates.

Another group with a new name is far larger, has many more members with long-term political experience, and its members are more rooted in their community. It is a strong believer in the need for a Socialist party with a capital S. But none of its +20 members (which includes me) are personal mates with you (Fitzpatrick or Murphy). Before Christmas, one member had a brief phone chat with you (Fitzpatrick) as the group was about to debate whether to request membership. You asked for more info on the group.

On 2 January, you were sent an email that read:” The members of our group are all active either as officers or members in various organisations, unions, and campaign groups, including Unite Community, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Green Party, Labour Party local anti-cuts campaigns, Just Stop Oil, Bristol and West Left Alliance, socialist environmental issue groups and many more. Several of us have stood as local political candidates and plan to stand again. The aim of our group is to campaign for the formation of a new mass party of the left.”

Five weeks later, you have failed to reply. It is safe to predict this group will be giving Collective a miss.

The bottom line? There are no universal criteria used to recruit to Collective. Who you know is the key issue. Your politics are very secondary.

2) HAVE YOU HAD ANY RESPONSES TO OR DEBATE OVER YOUR NEW DRAFT INTERIM PARTY CONSTITUTION?

Your new interim party constitution may not become a “must see” item for everyone, but we assume your supporters and those wanting a new party will want to have a scan of it at least. So we’ve posted a copy HERE as a Google doc.

One of the main complaints made against almost all existing political parties is their major “weaknesses” - to understate the case- as functioning democratic organisations. Labour, Green, Reform, etc: all face this often very valid criticism. Any new party of the left must be whiter than white on questions of democracy and transparency.

There is not the space here to do a full critique of your new constitution, but three points need to be made:

1) This is a very sparsely worded legal document or rule book. A wide number of issues and potential flashpoints are simply ignored. This spells trouble, at least for your members. I appreciate that this is merely an interim constitution, but a fuller constitution may take months to draft as this three-page effort took more than a year.

2) It appears to be a constitution drafted merely to meet the minimum Electoral Commission requirements; see below.

3) But the biggest problem is this: you have created a totally top-down and hierarchical structure with the “interim collective leadership” - presumably the two of you, plus a few mates – sitting on top with almost total and almost unchallengeable power. I showed it to a couple of people with extensive organisational and legal experience. They came back to me with both thumbs down.

3) WHY HAS COLLECTIVE MISSED THE DEADLINE TO REGISTER AS A POLITICAL PARTY?

In its constitution, Collective focuses almost entirely on electoralism and running candidates for political office. Only one brief phrase mentions “campaigning and direct action.” Many socialists I've talked to think that this almost exclusive emphasis on winning support at the ballot box is a serious political mistake if you want to build a political base.

But setting that issue aside, TLL was initially surprised to learn that Collective still has not registered as a political party more than a year after it was formed. After all, Collective has stressed many times over recent months that it planned to run Its own party candidates in the May 2025 local elections.

Despite preparing an interim draft constitution and submitting the “Collective party financial scheme” (see Sec. 10 of your constitution),that is now impossible.

The Electoral Commission has repeatedly announced that, to run in those elections, new parties must have been registered by 5:00 p.m. on 31 January. But as you can see from this list containing the 377 registered political parties in the UK as of 7 February, Collective is not on the list.

It is now “highly unlikely” Collective could run as a party in May 2025, a Commission spokesperson told TLL in a 3 February interview.

There have been repeated complaints about the administrative inefficiency of Collective’s so-called “secretariat.” But missing such an obvious deadline goes beyond mere inefficiency. It points to making a deliberate political choice. See the conclusions at the end.

4) WHAT LESSONS HAVE YOU LEARNED FROM THE PAST UK SOCIALIST MOVEMENT, AS WELL AS ELSEWHERE IN EUROPE?

We acknowledge that building a new political party of the left - whatever that means? anyone to the left of Keir Starmer? - is an extremely difficult task.

But the job will be far more difficult if any group claiming to be the leaders of such a campaign have not debated and learned the lessons of our own history or appreciated what are positive developments on the left elsewhere in Europe.

What are likely to be successful (or failing) long-term strategies? How should parties react to the inevitable ups and downs of their political fortunes? How important is PR? How does a contemporary socialist party operate in the 2020s? What are eco socialist demands? What does it mean to be “left” or “socialist”?

After studying Collective for the past five months and talking to a few of its supporters, we are not convinced Collective has answered any of these questions. It has no intention of becoming a real socialist party. Instead, it comes across as a strictly “Labourist” formation. Or more precisely, “Labourist without Starmer.”

If you follow this orientation, you will fail to build a serious and radical alternative to the current oppressive status quo.

Here are a few suggested articles for your weekend reading, all from THE LEFT LANE over the past year:

+ A piece by Gregor Gall on the Scottish Socialist Party which, 20 years ago, elected six MSP, before it all but imploded. Insightful article! Depressing tale!

+ A piece by Phil Pope on The Socialist Alliance that lasted for six years 20 years ago, but became a plaything of the SWP and SP. Fatal!

+ A recent piece I wrote on the Workers’ Party of Belgium which today has more than 25,000 members in a country with 1/6 the population of the UK. Encouraging!

5) WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE COLLECTIVE PARTY WILL BE “THE ONE” FOR THE WORKING CLASS OF THE UK?

Some people have said THE LEFT LANE has been too critical of Collective. We reject the criticism.

As we are sure you are aware, there is a virtual alphabet soup of parties claiming to be “THE party” of the left (or some related designation) in the UK today. The SWP, SP, SPEW, CP, RCP, WPB, CPGB, CPGB-ML, AWL ...and that’s off the top of my head.

We can safely say that hundreds of thousands of people now situate themselves politically to the left of Labour. The very last thing they need is another left screw up. And so this is not the time to look the other way when obvious mistakes are being made, at least obvious to some of us.

Fairly, I think, and with facts, I've made a made a number of serious criticisms of Collective and its overall approach to politics. I have one further criticism. I do not think, Karie, that you are the proper person to be heading the campaign to launch a new party of the left. You are too divisive a figure.

You have written at the start of this piece that you have never heard of me before. Fine. I have very definitely heard of you.

Over the last few weeks I have read at least seven articles where you are the main focus of interest. No one denies that you are a powerful woman who is well connected. You know Corbyn well and know others in the trade union movement.

There is not a space here to summarise these seven articles. I quote only a few words from one 2019 magazine article. It says: “… time and time again (Murphy) has been at the heart of the wholly avoidable controversies that have rumbled away in the background of Corbyn's leadership…Murphy’s name comes up in connection to a low-level scandal that so easily could have been avoided…Dianne Abbott and John McDonnell are understood to have been long standing critics of Murphy”. After you were ousted by Corbyn in the autumn of 2019, the same article concluded, “ the main thing … is that it’s amazing it didn't happen sooner.”

The incendiary e-mail you sent me last 24 January reveals that your “management style” remains the same as it has always been. Within Collective, you are unchallengeable as I saw in a November 2024 Zoom session. (See Part 1)

I think you should consider your position as the head of Collective.

C) A FEW CONCLUSIONS

1) Ever since Collective came to public attention in September 2024, there has been what we could call a “two-line struggle” within Collective as to what should be its priorities.

One group – call it Group A – has favoured the creation of a national new party of the left in the year 2025. A second group - call it Group B - has been opposed to this view and instead has favoured building up some type of ill-defined “mass movement” over coming years. Perhaps - mind you, nothing definite - forming a UK-party might come at a later stage, says Group B.

Group B is headed by Corbyn (your former boss), and includes Jamie Driscoll, ex-mayor of Newcastle, and Andrew Feinstein of London. Feinstein ran as an MP candidate against Keir Starmer in the 4 July general election.

All three former Labour Party members and politicians have spoken out publicly against forming a national party “in the immediate future”. I’ve heard Feinstein say it in person. Driscoll registered his own regional party in the Northeast called “Majority” in December 2024.

2) At first glance, it might appear as if the views of Group A had triumphed in Collective. Collective now has an interim party constitution, submitted a “financial scheme” to the Electoral Commission, and it will presumably keep on meeting as a closed internal group tightly controlled by its “interim collective leadership” …and one, we should add, that is essentially immune from democratic oversight by its members.

3) But, in fact, Group B, led by Corbyn, has triumphed. Despite being in existence for over a year, Collective has made few advances in becoming a serious national political force as one might think this those in Group A would want.

Collective is still NOT a registered political party a year later. It cannot run candidates in local or national elections. It has no national political strategy. It has zero national public profile. It meets in secret. It operates as a sectarian outfit that excludes from its ranks socialists who might offer an alternative strategical vision. It presumes “we have the franchise to create a new party of the left” and it will presumably just keep chugging along ineffectively … and with Corbyn as its totem.

4) Meanwhile, more and more independent so-called “left candidates” and local independent groupings will emerge at various locales across England. Some local independent groupings will bill themselves as “parties” but won’t really be in any meaningful sense and won’t campaign under the name “Collective.” (As noted above, they cannot).

5) A few may win seats in local councils. But such groups will be based primarily on local personalities such as Driscoll or Feinstein. Their election platforms won‘t be “socialist” by any stretch. Their focus will be overwhelmingly electoralist and very close to their home turf.

Winning and keeping a seat on the local council will be their main focus. And because the UK has a unitary form of government with power overwhelmingly centred in Westminster, a whole range of issues outside the competence of local councils, such as climate change (except at the fringes), the privatisation of the NHS, Gaza, the dangers of war, A1 and so on will be outside the political focus of these local independent groups. A national or international left-wing orientation will be shunned and that, of course, is exactly the way that both Starmer and Farage will prefer things to unfold. Socialists won’t. Nor will pro-Palestine activists.

6) There is not the space in this article to do a full assessment of this strictly localist approach to politics. It is a subject to which THE LEFT LANE will return.

To conclude: 1) an over-concentration on local issues is a dead end for socialists; 2) socialism means a tad more than more efficient local bin collection.

++++

CHECK THIS OUT

Thursday, 6 February would have been the 80th birthday of Bob Marley. Here is the link (BBC iplayer) to a large “Young Voices” choir concert held that day in Manchester.

In these often dark days, take strength from the well-known lyrics of Marley and Peter Tosh:

“Get up, stand up
Stand up for your right
Get up, stand up
Stand up for your right
Get up, stand up
Stand up for your right
Get up, stand up
Don't give up the fight.”

Happy 80th Bob!

+++++

GERMANY VOTES 23 FEB.

Germans vote for a new parliament on 23 February. It is a more important than usual votes; migration will be a key battleground issue. Carla Roberts, who was born in Germany and follows its politics closely, assesses the election in an insightful piece in the WEEKLY WORKER of 6 February.

++++++++++

Edited by Alan Story, THE LEFT LANE is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber: http://theleftlane2024.substack.com/subscribe

You can reach us at: theleftlanepolitics@gmail.com

You can read all previous columns of THE LEFT LANE here

Follow us on THE LEFT LANE Instagram and on THE LEFT LANE Bluesky:

https://bsky.app/profile/leftlanepolitics.bsky.social